Davis v. United States
20-1071
| Fed. Cl. | May 20, 2022Background
- Pro se plaintiff Donald L. Davis, a federal inmate, alleges the government improperly withdrew $400 from his Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Prisoner Trust Fund after he had canceled prior checks sent to Sheliqua Fuller; he seeks return of the $400 as an illegal exaction.
- Transaction history in the amended complaint: withdrawals on 16 and 23 June 2020 ($400 each), a returned/canceled pair from Dec 2019/Jan 2020, and an additional $400 withdrawal on 28 July 2020 that Davis says was wrongful.
- Davis sues under the Tucker Act alleging an illegal exaction and a Fifth Amendment due process violation; he cites 31 U.S.C. § 1321 and BOP/Treasury guidance and alternatively pleads an implied-in-fact contract.
- The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing §1321 is not money-mandating for these claims and that due-process claims generally do not confer Tucker Act jurisdiction; the court ordered supplemental briefing.
- The court concluded, relying on controlling Federal Circuit precedent, that a statutory illegal-exaction claim need not identify a money-mandating source and that §1321(a)(21) (Prisoner Trust Funds), as interpreted by OLC and precedent, imposes fiduciary obligations sufficient to permit Tucker Act jurisdiction over Davis’s illegal exaction claim.
- The court dismissed Davis’s implied-contract theory for lack of proof of an implied-in-fact contract, left the due-process issue (to the extent distinct from the illegal-exaction theory) for later resolution, and denied as moot the transfer request and a procedural motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tucker Act jurisdiction over illegal-exaction claim based on an alleged wrongful $400 withdrawal under 31 U.S.C. §1321 | Davis: §1321(a)(21), BOP Program Statement, and Treasury rules impose fiduciary duties; wrongful withdrawal is an illegal exaction and Tucker Act jurisdiction follows | U.S.: §1321 is not a money-mandating source; Spengler shows trust classification alone does not create money-mandating fiduciary duties | Held: Court has jurisdiction over the illegal-exaction claim — Boeing and related authority permit statutory illegal-exaction jurisdiction without a separate money-mandating text, and OLC/Salter support fiduciary duties under §1321(a)(21) for Prisoner Trust Funds. |
| Jurisdiction based on an implied-in-fact contract | Davis: BOP Trust Fund/Deposit Manual and practice create an implied contract to safeguard inmate funds | U.S.: No meeting of minds, no offer/acceptance, withdrawals governed by statute not contract; plaintiff fails to prove implied-in-fact contract elements | Held: Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on implied-contract theory — plaintiff failed to meet the burden to show an implied-in-fact contract. |
| Due Process claim under the Fifth Amendment | Davis: alternatively seeks validation of illegal exaction under Due Process (Casa de Cambio principle that Due Process-based illegal exaction can support Tucker Act jurisdiction) | U.S.: Due Process claims are not money-mandating and not within Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction | Held: Court did not resolve dismissal on this ground now — because it found Tucker Act jurisdiction via the illegal-exaction theory, the court need not decide the separate due-process jurisdictional argument at this time. |
| Request to transfer venue if jurisdiction lacking (28 U.S.C. §1631) | Davis: asks transfer to proper court if CFC lacks jurisdiction | U.S.: Opposes transfer, cites failure to exhaust administrative remedies | Held: Transfer request denied as moot because court retained jurisdiction over the illegal-exaction claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boeing Co. v. United States, 968 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (statutory illegal-exaction jurisdiction does not require a money-mandating source)
- Aerolineas Argentinas v. United States, 77 F.3d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (defines illegal exaction elements and Tucker Act scope)
- Eastport S. S. Corp. v. United States, 372 F.2d 1002 (Ct. Cl. 1967) (classic illegal-exaction formulation: money paid to government sought to be returned)
- Casa de Cambio Comdiv S.A. v. United States, 291 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Tucker Act jurisdiction over Due Process claims only when they amount to an illegal exaction)
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (U.S. 1976) (Tucker Act is jurisdictional; substantive right must exist)
- Norman v. United States, 429 F.3d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (addressing scope of illegal-exaction jurisdiction)
- Salter v. United States, 119 Fed. Cl. 359 (2014) (Prisoner Trust Fund fiduciary obligations under §1321 support jurisdiction)
- Spengler v. United States, 127 Fed. Cl. 597 (2016) (distinguishing commissary fund decisions and discussing §1321’s scope)